IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i5p1827-1833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Essential Work Is Gender Segregated: This Shapes the Gendered Representation of Essential Workers in Political Office

Author

Listed:
  • Tiffany D. Barnes
  • Mirya R. Holman

Abstract

Objective To understand how gender structures the occupations of essential workers and which essential workers serve in political office. Methods We first use population‐level data by gender and occupation to examine the gender segregation of occupations deemed essential. Using the population composition as our baseline, we then examine descriptive representation using a new data set that codes the presence of essential workers in 30 state legislatures over 15 years. Results We show that men and women make up similar shares of the occupations considered essential during COVID, but the occupations that they hold are highly gender segregated. We find that women essential workers and those from women‐dominated occupations are dramatically underrepresented in state legislatures. Conclusion Documenting the (lack of) representation of essential workers, and particularly those from women‐dominated occupations, in decision‐making bodies is a critical first step to understanding policy making in response to COVID‐19.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiffany D. Barnes & Mirya R. Holman, 2020. "Essential Work Is Gender Segregated: This Shapes the Gendered Representation of Essential Workers in Political Office," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1827-1833, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1827-1833
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12850
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12850?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Lowande & Melinda Ritchie & Erinn Lauterbach, 2019. "Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress: Evidence from 80,000 Congressional Inquiries," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(3), pages 644-659, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rametta, Jack T., 2024. "Did the Republican Revolution Hamstring Congressional Oversight? Evidence from 55,000 GAO Reports," OSF Preprints 7zk4p, Center for Open Science.
    2. Sørensen, Rune J., 2023. "Educated politicians and government efficiency: Evidence from Norwegian local government," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 163-179.
    3. Bose, Paul, 2021. "Political (self-)selection and competition: Evidence from U.S. Congressional elections," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242377, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Brogaard, Jonathan & Gerasimova, Nataliya & Rohrer, Maximilian, 2024. "The effect of female leadership on contracting from Capitol Hill to Main Street," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Lindsey Cormack, 2021. "Strength in numbers: The forces of constituency size, legislator identity, and institutional position on veterans’ representation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2849-2862, November.
    6. Christian Salas, 2022. "Representation increases participation: evidence from a reform in Chile," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 21-30, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1827-1833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.